Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Tragic Plight of a Good, Moral Atheist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I would bet my bottom dollar that most atheists active on or reading this site are very moral, good people. In fact, I would bet that rvb8, Pindi and seversky are better (morally speaking) people than I am. I would further make a bet that part of the very reason they embrace atheism is because they consider the type of “god” they have had exposure to in church or in their community would be, if it actually existed according to what they’ve been exposed to as far as religious teachings, an absurdly evil being not worthy of belief, much less worship. I would agree with them on this point – the god I perceived being taught to me in Sunday School was a ridiculously bad god and I rightfully rejected that concept of god as such.

The problem I had for many years, though, was being unable to separate my particular, childishly-developed concept of god from the idea that this concept represented all theistic thought or even all Christian thought. Although I’m not a Christian, I’ve come to realize that the concept of god that I developed in my mind as a child (whether or not it was accurate wrt what was being preached on Sunday) doesn’t even closely resemble the Christian God concept represented by Lewis or Augustine and other more sophisticated Christian philosophers. My atheistic bias against theism was based entirely upon a childishly ignorant conceptualization of what the term “god” meant.

As far as my own personal beliefs are concerned, rvb8, Pindi and seversky are probably just fine wrt their afterlife prospects (and their relationship with god) even given their atheism. In my view, atheism is no barrier to moving on to the afterlife. It will just be a little bit more of a surprise for them than some others. So, it’s not like I’m trying to save anyone from going to hell – I don’t even believe in hell (as a eternity of suffering). Others here may disagree with me on this, but I’m just letting them know I personally bear them no ill will nor do I consider them to be bad or even doomed people. They’re probably in better spiritual shape than I, even given their atheistic materialism.

Having been a very devout, analytical atheistic materialist, I speak from some experience. I asked myself repeatedly as an atheist, why bother trying to be good? What does it even mean to be “good”? What purpose does it serve? Under atheistic materialism, being good had no ultimate or inescapable intrinsic value; all “being good” could possibly achieve was some personal, temporary, subjective end. Help you to fit in and succeed in society, or make and keep friends, or make you feel better about yourself. Maybe one could even think that one is contributing to some social system that would ultimately benefit them or their children.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee in life that behaving in a way that feels good (morally speaking) will achieve anything one wants at all other than the immediate (and ultimately, illusory) physical sensation of “having done something good”. I say illusory, because everything that would occur in an actual atheistic, materialist world would all be driven by the same physico-chemical forces and they would result in whatever feelings one’s particular chemistry happened to produce. One could be Jeffrey Dahmer and feel like they were doing good. And, it would be exactly the same value of feeling as the feeling one gets when helping out a person in need; there is no higher-order judgement on the mindless effects of chemistry. It just produces what it produces.

This is the tragic nature of the good, moral atheist; they want their good acts to be somehow more real or better than an act a religious fanatic considers and feels is good, but alas, under the logical ramifications of atheistic materialism, their good acts would be the factual, physico-chemical equivalents of Jihadis who felt they were doing good by driving planes into buildings. There is no source distinction between any act anyone does. In fact, there’s no distinction between a good or evil act – they would all be relentlessly generated by chemistry and physics, as would be our perception and evaluation of those events.  Calling one act good and one act evil would be categorically the same kind of evaluation as calling the shape of one leaf good and the shape of another evil. It would be a ridiculous, meaningless distinction.

So, in an actual atheistic/materialist world, what does being good achieve? Nothing. Being good or evil doesn’t change chemistry and physics one bit. What you see in the world is the world physics and chemistry produces. There is no “better” world to strive for, no utopia or better society waiting at some point in the future because chemistry and physics is not going to change in the future towards some delusional, imagined better end. Chemistry and physics are not conspiring to try and generate a kinder, more loving, more gentle, more fair human being in order to establish a future Shangri-La, and we have no power over chemistry and physics to try and generate that outcome; all of that is part of the illusion of conscious self-determination under atheistic materialism.

What a tragic plight that would be for hypothetical biological automatons; acting and thinking however matter commands but living in a delusion of self and free will as if you have a choice and as if what you do is “good” in some meaningful sense, or that it matters wrt the relentless ongoing cause-and-effect process of chemistry and physics; as if you could somehow change the course of matter from your state of internal delusion when in fact you cannot. All you can do is what it tells you; all you can think or feel or believe is what it tells you; “you” have no power over it (chemistry and physics) at all.

This logical ramification of atheism is what ultimately led to my decision to not be an atheist any more – not evidence, not fact, not even reasoned argument that atheistic materialism was irrational (I discovered that much later). No, I wanted and needed to be able to be a good person, and for that “goodness” to matter and to mean something more than the illusory self-satisfaction which is all atheistic materialism could offer. There is simply no way for the concept of good to be anything other than part of a matter-driven illusion without a god of some sort and without free will.

To Pindi, seversky and rvb8: that doesn’t mean the choice is between atheistic materialism and an unacceptable, ridiculous, evil, childish notion of god and spiritual existence. However, it is a choice between able to be good in a way that actually means something and actually matters, and only experiencing a sensation of being good whenever some particular chemical interaction dictates it and which ultimately doesn’t matter or change anything one bit.

And here’s the kicker: if atheistic materialism is true, there’s no reason not to believe in a good god worth believing in, and no reason not to believe in a good that really matters and in a free will which can make those choices, because there is no penalty for believing those things even if they are false. After all, in a hypothetical atheistic/materialist world, it’s not like you’re going to score extra points when you die for having happened to believe true things during your life.

Comments
Seversky, I challenge you to define the good without reference to the transcendent good and without falling into one species or another of might and/or manipulation make right, truth, meaning etc, and/or into self undermining of the human mind and freedom to think responsibly and rationally. KF PS: As you seem to be focussed on dismissive hostility to the Christian faith, it is suggest that you (or the onlooker) may find here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds with here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu and here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-9-sins-of-christendom.html#u9_intro useful reading.kairosfocus
September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Seversky @60, Your idea of God is wrong. God is not like your conception of Him from the Old Testament. As I pointed out previously, to understand the Old Testament one must read it in the light of the New Testament. God is not like your father. Nor your mother. Nor any other authority figure in your childhood. You need to give God a chance to show you Who He is. It's free. It's easy. Sincerely and persistently ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Seek Him out in studying the New Testament. Talk to Him. Ask Him, if He is really there and is indeed the God of love the Christians claim that He is, to enlighten you in a way that you will know with certainty it is Him Who is doing so. If He doesn't exist and therefore doesn't respond no harm has been done to you and you haven't lost anything but a little time you could have spent in other pursuits. If He does exist, and is primarily and essentially loving goodness, you will have found a treasure of immense proportions. You owe it to yourself to at least check it out. Most believers, I think, believe in God not because of logic -- even though it couldn't be more logical to believe in God -- but because of their spiritual experience of Him. It is an experience that often cannot be described to others any more than one could describe the experience of the color blue to one totally blind from birth. But it is nonetheless an experience that is a direct contact with Truth and Love itself that has not been filtered though our sensory faculties. You know it when you experience it. It is entirely reasonable to make a sincere effort to seek God out, and irrational and inexcusable to refuse to do that.harry
September 27, 2016
September
09
Sep
27
27
2016
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
I would bet my bottom dollar that most atheists active on or reading this site are very moral, good people. In fact, I would bet that rvb8, Pindi and seversky are better (morally speaking) people than I am.
Nice of you to say so, but as I see it we are all just human beings with the strengths and weaknesses of our kind.
I would further make a bet that part of the very reason they embrace atheism is because they consider the type of “god” they have had exposure to in church or in their community would be, if it actually existed according to what they’ve been exposed to as far as religious teachings, an absurdly evil being not worthy of belief, much less worship. I would agree with them on this point – the god I perceived being taught to me in Sunday School was a ridiculously bad god and I rightfully rejected that concept of god as such.
I don't remember any kind of epiphany, more like a slow drift away from belief in the Christian God as I became more interested in science. It was only later that I became aware with the problems with God as described in the Bible.
As far as my own personal beliefs are concerned, rvb8, Pindi and seversky are probably just fine wrt their afterlife prospects (and their relationship with god) even given their atheism. In my view, atheism is no barrier to moving on to the afterlife.
If there is an afterlife it may be very different from that promised by Christian doctrine. The thing is, I would like there to be an afterlife as much as the next person. I doubt there's anybody who is content with the prospect of complete oblivion. But wanting something doesn't mean it exists or will ever happen. I want command of my own starship capable of travelling around the galaxy. Do I think that will ever happen, however hard I want it? No, not all.
To Pindi, seversky and rvb8: that doesn’t mean the choice is between atheistic materialism and an unacceptable, ridiculous, evil, childish notion of god and spiritual existence. However, it is a choice between able to be good in a way that actually means something and actually matters, and only experiencing a sensation of being good whenever some particular chemical interaction dictates it and which ultimately doesn’t matter or change anything one bit.
"However, it is a choice between able to be good in a way that actually means something and actually matters,..." to whom? That's always the unspoken part of such a claim. Meaning only exists in the mind of the beholder and something or some one only matters to some one. Believers fell better if they believe that their lives have meaning and matter, which means they need a Creator to whom they matter.
And here’s the kicker: if atheistic materialism is true, there’s no reason not to believe in a good god worth believing in, and no reason not to believe in a good that really matters and in a free will which can make those choices, because there is no penalty for believing those things even if they are false. After all, in a hypothetical atheistic/materialist world, it’s not like you’re going to score extra points when you die for having happened to believe true things during your life.
So, basically, you're opting for Pascal's Wager and also confirming what Karl Marx wrote:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Seversky
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Cabal @47: You trust science? Which version? When science said the earth was flat? (Meanwhile the Bible claimed it was spherical). When science estimated there were about 1000 stars? (Meanwhile the Bible claimed the stars were too numerous to count). When science claimed the universe was eternal; had no beginning? (Meanwhile the Bible said that the universe had a beginning). I could go on. But the question remains; what “science” do you place your trust in? Science is ever changing and is self fulfilling. That is the point of God’s Word: never changing and ultimate truth. So you either accept that (and believe the Word of One who was actually there versus someone trying to look in the past and make an educated guess with bias) or you don’t. Ultimately you are exercising faith though either way. You would do well to try and understand why Jesus spoke in parables, to certain people only: for the sake of judgement. Jesus did not speak in parables to all and not to those who truly seemed Him and His salvation. I fear that at 86 and thinking you have it all figured out, you are in grave danger of false confidence in the flesh with little time left. The Devil is the ultimate gnostic and the father of it. After all, how did he tempt eve but with gnosis (knowing like God).Dr JDD
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
JAD "I think rvb8 is a classic example of an incorrigible cynic. I don’t see there is any way that you can deal honestly with such a person except keep pointing out his (her?) cynicism. The question is what is behind the cynicism? Is it anger, arrogance or something else?" I think it's likely that most of our interlocutors are engaged in discussion on other anti-ID, or anti-Christian sites, and as such, they score brownie points for merely attempting to refute us. I've seen several sites where this occurs. TSZ is one.CannuckianYankee
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
JAD, he has been responded to on the merits at 50, and instead of acknowledging correction or otherwise responding responsibly, he has tried to double down on demonstrably false accusations. And then, such atheist trolls and fellow travellers pretend to ignorance as to why people take seriously analyses back to Plato in The Laws Bk X that point to the moral hazards for the community of evolutionary materialism. Trollish conduct is of course nihilistic behaviour. KFkairosfocus
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
What we are seeing (@ 49) is typical troll behavior: Find something-- anything-- to get personally “offended” about and use to derail or disrupt the discussion. Please let’s not enable that kind of behavior. If you see it, call them on it. Trolls are not here because they are reasonable, nor do they want to have an honest open minded discussion.john_a_designer
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
rvb8, StephenB has been participating over at Wayne Rossiter's site for the past several days and possibly elsewhere. I don't know that he has been following this thread at all recently.HeKS
September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
RVB8, just from your opening words, you are now clearly speaking in disregard to truth of the situation and in disrespect to a person I have shown to be quite different from the strawman caricature you have repeatedly set up and attacked. Further to this, that you are doubling down on such demands, indicates that you have not taken seriously the time or effort I took to provide correction, at a time when I can scarce spare such time or effort; indicating that further correction is useless. Then, you compound all of this by accusing me of dishonesty. It is you, sir who have breached reasonable discussion and obviously owe an apology. Good day. KFkairosfocus
September 24, 2016
September
09
Sep
24
24
2016
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Kairos, is SB unavailable to apologize, and therefore you did the only thing possible and found recourse in 'apologetics'. Come on SB, be a man, say this, " I'm sorry Robert, I misunderstood the Lewis quote, I didn't know it was from a Christian, and I thought to twist it to my advantage. In the future I will be more careful. Nothing anyone does or says after my misunderstanding can take away my stupidity. I apologize, I should have followed the example of that very decent chap, Origenes!" Kairos, less wordyism, more honesty, it's the Christian way! Or so I'm told.rvb8
September 24, 2016
September
09
Sep
24
24
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Discussions such as the one on this web page would be much more interesting and beneficial to all involved if the atheists who participated in it had the basic intellectual honesty and genuine commitment to seeking out the truth of, say, an Antony Flew, who was the Dawkins of his day, but unlike Dawkins and the other New Atheists, gave atheism a modicum of respectability due to his sincerity. Flew eventually became a theist due to the compelling nature of arguments such as the ones made so often on this web site. Where are the Antony Flews of contemporary atheism? The discoveries of modern science have rendered contemporary atheism irrational. So does promoting belief in it simply require irrationality? Or is it that awareness of its irrationality requires of one an intentional intellectual dishonesty and the use of sophistry to promote belief in it? Or is it simply a matter of contemporary atheism requiring of its adherents pitiful ignorance?harry
September 24, 2016
September
09
Sep
24
24
2016
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
I trust science.
Strange.
I believe that is a more reliable attitude than putting all your money on ancient myths.
And yet you believe the ancient myth of evolution. "It's a creationist site" is not an excuse
There are interesting things to be derived from the myths
Evodelusion is more pitiable than educative.
but in my opinion, Christendom has lost the key to unlocking the true meaning of the myths.
And Theistic Darwinism, Atheism, Secularism or Scientism is the way forward?Vy
September 24, 2016
September
09
Sep
24
24
2016
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
RVB8: You have clearly set up and knocked over a strawman target, failing to address what SB actually addressed: >>rvb8
[Citing Lewis, to dismiss without serious consideration:] “Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He were the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses.”
[SB:] You are off and running with several false assumptions. “Chiefly” is not synonymous with” solely,” The one chiefly offended (God), who identifies and commiserates with his offended creatures, and whose moral laws have been broken, can forgive those who offend Him on condition that they repent and promise to do better. As God, He has the authority to do that. >> 1 --> This responds to you at 16, trying to discredit C S Lewis:
This is the person every Evangelical I know is constantly hiping? Hitchens may not be your cup of tea, but he did have a sense of humour. BTW, later in Lewis’s life, Tolkien also grew weary of his sanctominy, and I certainly know which of these two was the better tale teller. There is of course, in Lewis, the assumption that Jesus was a real person, but I’ll pass over that obvious bias. I find it offensive that I don’t have to take responsibility for my actions, and faults and can pass them onto a stranger. And yet that is the core of Christianity.
2 --> C S Lewis (given his well earned reputation that endures 50+ years after his death, demonstrated in ever so many ways) is not on trial, you are. 3 --> That you are suggesting it is a biased assumption to accept the historical reality of Jesus itself speaks volumes on your failure to address the overwhelming evidence and of the discrediting degree of anti-Christian prejudice on your part which then tries to turnabout and project the problem. 4 --> Your sneer at Lewis is meant to dismiss CSL's point without addressing merits. SB provides corrective context (and so do others including me). 5 --> It is fair comment to note that instead of correcting your own attitude, you have projected a strawman caricature. 6 --> I speak further FTR, as it is plain that you tried above to embroil others in your attempt to pounce on your strawman SB. 7 --> Rightly, SB highlights that the FIRST offended party in the case of willful breach of the moral law written in our hearts is its Author, our Creator who has made us in his image as responsible, rational, significantly free creatures tasked to jointly work with him in the truth and the right. He continues: >> [SB:] But that is not the whole story. The other offended party, the human, is also due some satisfaction. The offender is obliged to make reparation as much as possible. Indeed, Proverbs 6:31 dramatizes the point by saying a thief must pay back the stolen money sevenfold. For that matter, all offenses to one’s neighbor must be accounted for.>> 8 --> SB here addresses the issue of harm to fellow man. Specifically as a point of balance. And well done too. >>Sometimes, because of the passage of time, the offender has no way of contacting or making reparation to the person he offended. Fortunately, God can step in and provide the forgiveness in His name and the name of the other offended party. Otherwise, the offender could never find relief for his conscience. But it doesn’t even end there. The offender also incurs future obligations: He must refrain from harming his neighbor at all, that is, he must love his neighbor as himself—even if his neighbor is an enemy. When you say, therefore, that Christianity exempts one from taking responsibility for his actions, you are talking nonsense. >> 9 --> More good stuff by SB, as opposed to your strawman caricature. 10 --> SB cites you again, and rightly corrects an outrageous example of selective hyperskepticism on history:
>> [RVB8:] There is of course, in Lewis, the assumption that Jesus was a real person, but I’ll pass over that obvious bias.
[SB] Bias? You doubt that Jesus was a real person? If you don’t accept the Gospels as historical narratives, I suggest that you consult with the Jewish and Roman historians, who testified the Jesus was a real person. By all means, don’t pass over that. >> 11 --> This point is pivotal, you clearly have not done your homework in general, nor are you familiar with Lewis' actual argument across the corpus of his work. 12 --> No sensible reasonably informed person should seriously doubt Jesus of Nazareth as a figure of C1 history to the point of trying to dismiss Lewis as making a biased assumption in regarding Jesus as a figure of history. That you do so is telling, and not in your favour. 13 --> And, on Jesus' claims, Lewis brings out the literary point on a myth as archetypal story-line then puts the point: here, myth became fact. Where, the facts on the table for that historical figure credibly reported in biographical works that ring of truth, the choice is Lord, liar or poached egg level lunatic. 14 --> While many attempts have been made to deride this, it is still valid given the wider context of established evidence. 15 --> SB cites you further, and responds in brief:
>> [RVB8:] I find it offensive that I don’t have to take responsibility for my actions, and faults and can pass them onto a stranger. And yet that is the core of Christianity.
As I just indicated, you don’t understand Christianity (or Catholicism). Do you have any questions that I can help you with?>> 16 --> You have again erected an outrageously distorted strawman that seeks to exploit the widespread ignorance of what Christian discipleship requires in highly secularised quarters. 17 --> The first step of discipleship is repentance, which requires acknowledging guilt and just condemnation for willful wrongdoing as a morally responsible individual who has chosen to walk in the known wrong. 18 --> But now, on the gracious mercy of messiah, one turns from sin to service and positive transformation as a vessel fit for service. 19 --> This is the very opposite of the irresponsibility you project. Where you are too educated to not know that one should not make grave accusations or dismissals without having done one's homework to get facts straight. 20 --> In addition, it remains that on evolutionary materialism you cannot ground a coherent responsible self, moral principles, or responsible rational freedom -- as has come out in thread after thread for many weeks now. 21 --> It therefore seems that the shoe is on the other foot. KFkairosfocus
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
Kai, WJM, and others; this will be my last post on this topic. Could you please get StephenB to do the Christian thing and apologize for not knowing Lewis. After my well known Lewis quote StephenB said; 'You are off and running with several false assumptions.' 'You', 'You', 'You'? Not ME! Lewis! As in Clive Staples Lewis. Apparently this good Christian, StephenB has run away, and refuses to apologize for his poor understanding. Also he attacked the bad theology of Lewis (which should outrage you, but kind of makes me chuckle). Where is your outrage that a follower so poorly understands your position that he is willing to attempt to malign Lewis? StephenB, do what that decent chap Origenes did, and apologize to me for not understanding the quote, or who it came from. Anything less puts atheists as your 'moral' superiors.rvb8
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
I think I can answer your question.
Cabal, You've completely avoided answering it, so far. Andrewasauber
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Asauber, I think I can answer your question. I trust science. I believe that is a more reliable attitude than putting all your money on ancient myths. There are interesting things to be derived from the myths, but in my opinion, Christendom has lost the key to unlocking the true meaning of the myths. Fundamentalism won the war and the victors wrote the history. Church fathers complained about the Gnostics but in the end they managed to get rid of them. To the loss of all of us. Esoteric wisdom, but it isn't lost, it just is not vogue right now. I've spent a lifetime - am 86 now, on the study of religions and science and have it all worked out. But I do not proselytize. If they prefer literal interpretation instead of understandig the hidden message it's okay wih me. It's their loss. Jesus spoke in parables, have his words (presuming there actually ever existed a genuine, historical Jesus) been decoded into plain language? I read the message as: follow me, take up your cross, and carry it to Calvary, die with me and rise as a Christ. Like St. Paul who wrote a lot about just that. Strage that the Gnsotics claimed Pauls as one of their own teachers! I've always been intrigued by the obvious mysticism found in his writings. It should not be too difficult to see throught the veil and discover the mysticism lurking under the surface of the letters of scripture. Religion is about life in the here and now - that's the "eternal" life. The symbols of death and resurrection should not be interpreted in a literal manner; they are symbols for you to integrate into your life. We are gods, but we don't know it.Cabal
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Pindi @ 38, This site and the internet in general would be better with fewer internet trolls.john_a_designer
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
IMHO, evolution, not chance is the obvious answer.
Cabal, I humbly submit there is nothing 'obvious' about 'evolution'. I suspect you don't even have a scientific definition of 'evolution' stored in your mind. I bet if you have any kind of definition at all of 'evolution' that can be recalled, it's more poetry than science. So what is it you think of when you see the word 'evolution'? Andrewasauber
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
IMHO, evolution, not chance is the obvious answer. Mutations are a fact of life that we'll have to live with. There is nothing in the world that says advantageous mutations cannot happen. If and when one happens, it may be passed down to the next generation and what is the mechanism that prevents it from increasing in frequency within the population? That's what's implicit in the term "differential allelic reproduction". I am in the habit of googling relevant terms whenever I find disagreement between science and critics. Sometimes I find the arguments from critics not very convincing. "ideological predisposition" is not reserved for any particular grouping in this debate, anyone is potentially susceptible to ideological predisposition. I therefore cannot exclude thinking that ID proponents also may be influenced by similar attitudes. Googling, I found so much more written on the subject of this thread that I recommend interested parties to take a closer look at the scientfic sources. How can disagreement on scientific issues be resolved without consulting the sources? Has the subject been thoroughly researched in any ID laboratory?Cabal
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
rvb8 has admitted he is not a scientist, but feels comfortable in stating:
I will however also say, evolution is a very simple (and beautiful) answer to life’s variety, and given the vast number of creation, (or designed) answers there are, we must view these as simplistic.
How is "evolution" a "very simple" answer? How is "god did it" any less simple than "chance did it"? Are there fewer "chance" answers than "design" answers available? And what makes "evolution did it" a "beautiful" answer? Are we peeking at rvb8's emotional commitment to a materialist answer? Given the same outcome, how would the beauty of evolution not also translate into beauty of design? Given that the primary attribute of any "answer" must be an actual capacity to provide sufficient cause for the variety of life we see all around us, and given that rvb8 has no expertise by which to assess the validity of evolutionary claims(either scientifically or logically), his sense that evolution can explain, is simple, and is "beautiful" can only be due to an ideological predisposition to respond to a materialist explanation in that manner. It certainly isn't due to scientific knowledge or a rational appreciation of the explanatory principles.William J Murray
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
rvb8, Correction: "evolution is a very simple (and wrong) answer to life’s variety" You're welcome. Andrewasauber
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
RVB8, yes we know the creedal evolutionary materialitic faith declaration [and the imposition under false colours of methodological constraint], meanwhile we await actual observation that blind chance and mechanical necessity separately or jointly can and do create integrated functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, especially algorithmic information such as in the cell. Beyond the threshold 500 - 1,000 bits on the gamut of sol system or observed cosmos:10^57 to 10^80 atoms or so, 13.8 BY or so, fast chem rxn rates ~ 10^-12 - 14s (with the slower organic rxns being most relevant). Meanwhile we will hold confidently to the analysis and trillion member observational basis that leads to the conclusion that such FSCO/I is reliably the product and a credible sign of intelligently directed configuration -- aka design -- as cause. KF PS: Meanwhile we continue to observe refusal to address the evident self referential incoherence and undermining of the credibility of mind in evolutionary materialistic scientism. Which issue remains pivotal whatever the state of play on rhetoric or socio-cultural agendas, agit-prop and what-not. PPS: FTR, Christian theology is, for good reason, quite clear that sin in the first and chief case is an offence against our Creator and Lord, which requires his forgiveness first and foremost. Sins against other people in significant part are offences against the image of God in those people which is the basis on which they have value to exert moral claims such as rights. (And here, you are piggybacking on rights without providing a proper evolutionary materialistic foundation for morality, which you cannot.) Thereafter, yes restoration of relationships at human level is necessary, but the latter is not as opposed to the former. Indeed, it is the integrated process of repentance- and- renewal that then fosters reformation- and- transformation of community to the good.kairosfocus
September 23, 2016
September
09
Sep
23
23
2016
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
StephenB, Origenes made the same mistake and quickly and very gentlemanly, apologized, will you do the same? That quote is not me it's Lewis from 'Mere'. Also, I apologize for my poor use of, and conflation of 'simple' and 'simplistic'. Simple answers are good, simplistic ones bad; agreed. I will however also say, evolution is a very simple (and beautiful) answer to life's variety, and given the vast number of creation, (or designed) answers there are, we must view these as simplistic.rvb8
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Here is an interesting youtube channel, C S Lewis Doodle: https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv4kx2QP4UM&list=PL9boiLqIabFgjeaTcx_LLsXrguKfeqLmnbornagain77
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
JAD@29, What do you think this site would be like if you had no one with opposing views commenting? At the moment it's pretty much just me and rvb8 and the odd comment from seversky. The only debates you guys really have amongst yourselves are theological ones. Without us its just a bunch of people sitting around patting themselves on the backs about how they have everything worked out. Echo chambers become boring very quickly.Pindi
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
HeKS @ 17 -- I prefer Tolkien's LOTR and Hobbit to the Narnia books, but I prefer Lewis's Space Trilogy over LOTR. I read the trilogy for the first time last year and I'm still enamored by some of it's allegorical truth. From others I have talked to, I seem to be in the minority, but... so be it.cmow
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
William J Murray "Says the person who denies free will exists and asserts that brute physico-chemical causes dictate every action." Indeed, what evidence for God could ever convince anyone who is willing to deny the witness of his own existence, i.e. the witness of his own 'personhood', and the witness of the existence his own free will, just so as to deny God? We are not dealing with rational people! Rationality and personhood are both willingly sacrificed on the alter of denying God any place in their lives. In other words, in refusing to have God in their life, they end up killing any notion of themselves as real people. i.e. They commit intellectual suicide!bornagain77
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
I find it offensive that I don’t have to take responsibility for my actions, and faults and can pass them onto a stranger.
Says the person who denies free will exists and asserts that brute physico-chemical causes dictate every action.William J Murray
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Heartlander @32: Nice additions and on point! HeKS @30: I'm sure you've noticed that when you talk to some people, all they are doing is waiting for a chance to say what they've got to say. I think what Pindi, rvb8 and seversky (and others) represent here are committed atheists/materialists who want/need to express their atheism/materialism, especially to Christians, and often to express some sort of negativity on theists and Christians in particular. It's clear they blame theists/religion/Christianity for something (in many cases, the world not being a prefect, natural utopia), and they've come here to express these internal motivations. The logic of the arguments and points made are lost on these particular individuals because, obviously, they offer no logical defense nor serve up a logically coherent system which can solve any of the conceptual issues raised (free will/responsibility/how we act, first cause, moral equivalence, etc). Their responses are best understood, IMO, as basically pre-packaged commentary triggered by certain keywords and phrases contained in our arguments, but which don't usually address the actual concepts the arguments engage. For example, seversky often draws an equivalence between neessary logical conclusions and personal opinion, as if referring to the conclusion of a string of logical inferences from a proposition as "your opinion" relieves him of the need to offer up an alternative string of logical inferences that would come to a different conclusion. As if "Nuh-uh!" is sufficient rebuttal to a logical conclusion. rvb8, for example, studiously ignores all challenges to actually write and argue as if atheistic materialism is true, starting with why is he arguing at all with noises and markings that chemistry and physics just happen to produce? How can such effects of chemistry be "right" or "wrong"? What is the point? Why are you implying that we have the power to override the chemistry and physics of our brains and bodies and force it to accept some "true" or "factual" information or argument, when their ideology logically dictates that we have no such power? john_a_designer @29: We are enabling them to continue making posts which can be used to easily demonstrate the irrational nature of their viewpoints and allow opportunities to explain the rational power of theistic arguments and the practical value of theistic beliefs. For many people that may be reading and actually have an open mind on the subject, it can be very enlightening.William J Murray
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
rvb8
“Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He were the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses.”
You are off and running with several false assumptions. “Chiefly” is not synonymous with” solely,” The one chiefly offended (God), who identifies and commiserates with his offended creatures, and whose moral laws have been broken, can forgive those who offend Him on condition that they repent and promise to do better. As God, He has the authority to do that. But that is not the whole story. The other offended party, the human, is also due some satisfaction. The offender is obliged to make reparation as much as possible. Indeed, Proverbs 6:31 dramatizes the point by saying a thief must pay back the stolen money sevenfold. For that matter, all offenses to one’s neighbor must be accounted for. Sometimes, because of the passage of time, the offender has no way of contacting or making reparation to the person he offended. Fortunately, God can step in and provide the forgiveness in His name and the name of the other offended party. Otherwise, the offender could never find relief for his conscience. But it doesn't even end there. The offender also incurs future obligations: He must refrain from harming his neighbor at all, that is, he must love his neighbor as himself—even if his neighbor is an enemy. When you say, therefore, that Christianity exempts one from taking responsibility for his actions, you are talking nonsense.
There is of course, in Lewis, the assumption that Jesus was a real person, but I’ll pass over that obvious bias.
Bias? You doubt that Jesus was a real person? If you don’t accept the Gospels as historical narratives, I suggest that you consult with the Jewish and Roman historians, who testified the Jesus was a real person. By all means, don't pass over that.
I find it offensive that I don’t have to take responsibility for my actions, and faults and can pass them onto a stranger. And yet that is the core of Christianity.
As I just indicated, you don’t understand Christianity (or Catholicism). Do you have any questions that I can help you with?StephenB
September 22, 2016
September
09
Sep
22
22
2016
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply